D&D 5E How to deal with Metagaming as a player?

[Guest 6801328]

Yeeeaaaaah, the DM is not the leader of his players. While the DM has a bigger part and more control over the GAME, it's a game of equals when it comes to the people who play it. You should let your control issues go and stop trying to dominate your players.

That's ironic because so many of your posts are about controlling the game. Telling players what they can and cannot do. This shows up in your posts over and over and over again. "That's not allowed." "You can't do that." "That's cheating." "That's not roleplaying." Etc. etc. etc.

So, yeah, nice try with the "control issues" thing but that's the pot calling the...silverware?...black.

The DM doesn't have to be the natural leader among a group of friends (that is, the DM can certainly be a rotating job), but while DMing it is very much the DMs game. And if something goes sideways the DM's first reaction should be to look for what he (or she) could have done better.

It's your game. You set the tone, you set the stage, you create the challenges.

Embracing authority while absolving oneself of blame is...is...well, let's not go there. We're supposed to be discussing RPGs.

 

[Maxperson]

I disagree. Because isn't part of the whole game trying to make good decisions, and trying to avoid death for your character? So it seems to me that beating the game, or getting an advantage over it, is part of the game's goal (along with just having fun, and an exciting adventure).

So altering die rolls, changing numbers on the character sheet, writing items on a sheet that weren't there before the challenge came up are all okay? Those are also "good decisions" that help you get an advantage over the game. I view those as no different from metagaming.

So this is where I think Iserith is correct to point out that metagaming seems encouraged by the game, because we all want to win don't we? Now of course there is a big difference between cheating (by for example reading the campaign module) and just thinking like a player.

But there is no difference between cheating and metagaming, because metagaming is cheating unless the DM allows it to happen.

And I think perhaps a more important question could be asked: Does it really matter if the players act upon their knowledge that the crone is a villain? So what if she doesn't drop them into her dungeon... what does it matter? Why make a big deal out of it?

Because metagaming is cheating unless the DM allows it. Allowing metagaming is no different from allowing players to change die rolls to whatever they wish.

And again, I think more importantly I don't see why busting the crone on her obvious betrayal would be such a big deal to some DM's. Yes, the players could come up with plenty of reasons why their characters might suspect foul play. But even if they don't have a reason to suspect her, why even put the players in such a position where they have to completely ignore what they know as players?

There is no obvious betrayal. There are literally thousands of ways that the rogue could have gone missing that don't involve the innocent old lady.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

There's a rather large difference between...

Players: "Gotlost went missing in this area and hasn't returned. We want to know if you've seen him?" - Not metagaming.

And...

Players: "Gotlost came here last night and fell through your trap door. We know you have him, so give him back to us or else." - Metagaming.

The size of the difference doesn't matter, Max. What does matter, though, is if the examples above are different from my re-phrasing of them below, and if so, how.

Player: I think my character would be suspicious of this woman, but he's not one to jump to conclusions, so he approaches and says "A friend of mine is supposed to be out here somewhere, have you seen him?" - role-playing.

and...

Player: I think my character would be suspicious of this woman, and is the type to think things like killers live out in the woods alone so people are less likely to realize their 'woodsy cottage' is actually a literal trap with a dungeon beneath where they stash their victims, plus he's really brash, so he approaches and shouts, "I know you've got my friend trapped in your dungeon, you give him back to me or else!" - also role-playing.

 

[Maxperson]

The size of the difference doesn't matter, Max. What does matter, though, is if the examples above are different from my re-phrasing of them below, and if so, how.

Player: I think my character would be suspicious of this woman, but he's not one to jump to conclusions, so he approaches and says "A friend of mine is supposed to be out here somewhere, have you seen him?" - role-playing.

and...

Player: I think my character would be suspicious of this woman, and is the type to think things like killers live out in the woods alone so people are less likely to realize their 'woodsy cottage' is actually a literal trap with a dungeon beneath where they stash their victims, plus he's really brash, so he approaches and shouts, "I know you've got my friend trapped in your dungeon, you give him back to me or else!" - also role-playing.

I see no difference. They are the same with the exception of yours adding a lot of filler words.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I see no difference. They are the same with the exception of yours adding a lot of filler words.

I think I may be confused.

Are you saying that you see no difference between my two examples of role-playing, or that you see no difference besides "filler words" (which I am interpreting as words added that do not significantly impact the meaning of the sentence) between your examples and mine? And if it is the later, how come it's two examples of role-playing when I choose the phrasing, and one example of metagaming when you choose the phrasing?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Maxperson]

Are you saying that you see no difference between my two examples of role-playing,

You have one example of roleplaying, and one example of metagaming disguised as roleplaying.

or that you see no difference besides "filler words" (which I am interpreting as words added that do not significantly impact the meaning of the sentence) between your examples and mine?

Correct. My examples were also between roleplaying and metagaming disguised as roleplaying.

And if it is the later, how come it's two examples of role-playing when I choose the phrasing, and one example of metagaming when you choose the phrasing?

It's not. Your example is the same as mine. Both are roleplaying, but the second example of each is also metagaming.

 

[Guest 6801328]

But those good decisions and death avoidance should come from in-character information only rather than out-of-character information.

What would we do with a fictional character in a movie or novel that we are creating?

Do we constrain ourselves to what is probable, or do we figure out how to make the improbable believable? Or at least plausible? I hope the latter. We author in coincidences, or re-write the backstory, or do whatever is necessary to tell the most compelling story we can think of.

Max loves to talk about "cheating" and how "adults" act and not "trusting" the players, but this can only come from a belief that all metagaming is about getting an unfair advantage. To beat the other players or the DM. Or something.

My default assumption is that players are going to try to tell a better story for everybody at the table. If they want their character to 'know' about something then I assume they are doing it to make the game more fun and I'm fine with it. They are "authoring in" something improbable but more interesting.

If sometimes the "more fun" they are trying to achieve is simply that they don't want to waste time pretending that they don't know about trolls and fire, that's fine with me. If they do want to pretend they don't know about trolls and fire that's also fine with me. And if one guy wants to pretend, and the other guy doesn't, they can each do their own thing because really the two can co-exist. (If the first guy starts whining about "billy broke my immersion!" he's really just trying to dictate how other people's characters think.)

And, sure, sometimes you get players who abuse the privilege, as the OP describes. But, as I keep saying, we can proscribe that behavior as "being a jerk" without getting into a debate about 'metagaming'.

 

[Maxperson]

I stand corrected.

Metagaming doesn't go away just by disguising it with some flowery language.